1 2026:CGHC:7606 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1491 of 2026 Radha Sahni D/o Tulsi Ram Sahni Aged About 43 Years R/o Ward No 1, Dewar Para, Rajim, Police Station Rajim, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Rajim, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Mohammad Afroz Athar, Advocate appears though video conferencing For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Deputy Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11.02.2026 1. This is the 4rst bail application 4led under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 145/2025 registered at Police Station- Rajim, District Gariyaband, (C.G.) for the o<ence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 318(4), 61(2)(a) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that FIR No. 145/2025 was registered under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 318(4), 61(2)(a) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) against the holders of seven bank accounts, namely Account Nos. 60493931643, 60491638398, 60509340556, 60509274354, 60515824007, 60493928857 and 60487661902, alleging that during the period from 30.05.2024 to 17.03.2025, a total sum of Rs.4,16,96,238/- (Rupees Four Crore Sixteen Lakh Ninety-Six Thousand Two Hundred Thirty-Eight) was transacted through the said ‘mule’ bank accounts from di<erent States of the country, which amount was allegedly obtained by cheating and online fraud, and a copy of the FIR is annexed as Annexure A-2, after registration of the FIR, the present applicant, being the holder of Account No. 60493931643, was arrested on 18.05.2025 on the allegation that he had purchased a mobile SIM card bearing No. 8815410509, opened the aforesaid bank account using the said SIM card, and thereafter handed over both the SIM card and the bank account to co- accused Harish Sahu in consideration of Rs.3,000/-, and during the course of investigation, it was found that an amount of Rs.41,29,037/- (Rupees Forty-One Lakh Twenty-Nine Thousand Thirty-Seven) had been credited into the applicant’s said bank account. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any o<ence and she has been falsely implicated in o<ence in question. He further submits that similarly situated co- accused Mohnish Kumar Tandiya has already been granted bail by 3 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Cr.) No. 18750/2025 vide order dated 22.01.2026 (Annexure A-3), and another co-accused, namely Pawan Kumar Miri, has also been granted bail by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 29.01.2026 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 985/2026 (Annexure A-4), and the allegations levelled against the present applicant are similar in nature, and the applicant, being a woman, is further entitled to the bene4t of bail on the ground of parity. He also submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, and she is in jail since 18.05.2025, the charge-sheet has been 4led and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has been 4led, but could not dispute the fact that co-accused persons have already been granted bail by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as Hon’ble this Court and the case of the present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of o<ence, period of detention of the applicant since 18.05.2025, the fact that though the present applicant and other co-accused were committed online fraud, but other co- accused Mohnish Kumar Tandiya has already been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Cr.) No. 18750/2025 vide order dated 22.01.2026, and another co-accused, namely Pawan Kumar 4 Miri, has also been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 29.01.2026 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 985/2026, and the case of present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused persons, further the applicant has no criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet has been 4led in the present case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the Applicant – Radha Sahni, involved in Crime No. 145/2025 registered at Police Station- Rajim, District Gariyaband, (C.G.) for the o<ence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 318(4), 61(2)(a) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall 4le an undertaking to the e<ect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 4xed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date 4xed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of her absence, without suFcient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail 5 during trial and in order to secure her presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date 4xed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates 4xed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without suFcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against her in accordance with law. 8. OFce is directed to provide a certi4ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan